Marshall v Hadlee

[kyear2]

I'll concede that.

It comes down to how much importance you put in this particular aspect of bowling excellence, I guess. In either case we're talking about very successfully adaptable bowlers, one a tick or so more than the other.

You mean average and consistency?

 

[shortpitched713]

You seem obsessed with spreadsheets and diving deeper instead of watching the game, read accounts of what it was like to face him. He drove the fear of God into batsmen both for their wickets and well being. His ability to perform and excel even on unresponsive pitches. He went to India on some of the most lifeless pitches ever and knocked that ball out of Sunny's hand, that does something to the guys in the pavilion.

If I had to choose one bowler in their prime to bowl out any random team, on any pitch in any conditions, for my life, I'm choosing Malcom, because he had the tools to succeed everywhere, and he did.

And you like to highlight slip fielding, as if it's some magical property that only the godlike talents can achieve. Potatoe, tomato.

But seriously, I do love and enjoy the craft of fast bowling as that's what drew me to the game to begin with, and would love to watch more and more footage of Marshall, as he was an absolute craftsman, there's no doubt.

Unfortunately, back in many of the days he (and Hadlee for that matter) played, some genius had the idea to film matches from an angle that tends to cover up the business end of ball delivery to batsman. It is quite annoying. In addition, I do also appreciate results not just the process and feel of a thing. Shoaib Akhtar sent chills down your spine, and Mushtaq Ahmed made bowling look boatloads of fun, but I'm hardly picking either of them in conversations about the ATG bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

Actually on second though I think you were referring to Warne, not Gillespie. In which case it could be even a bit more baffling. Warne was benefited more from McGrath than the other way around, which makes logical sense temporally/causally. McGrath started the innings with the new ball, and Warne only came in afterwards (often when a lot of damage had been done already).

This is somewhat true, and something I believed as well. Until I took a look at their stats in victories. Not a deep dive by any means, but for me interesting.

Warne
92 wins - 27 5fers - 7 10fers

McGrath
84 wins - 18 5fer - 3 10fers

And just for comparison

Marshall
43 wins - 17 5fers - 4 10fers

so Warne seemed to sometimes be more of a driving force in wins, even if slightly. But yes, could also be after McGrath took out the openers

Marshall though, in about half the wins had one less 5 wicket haul and one more 10 wicket haul.

these are the little reasons btw.

 

[shortpitched713]

You mean average and consistency?

No, in this case, how close the average is to the mean, against different conditions / opponents. A form of consistency, I suppose.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is somewhat true, and something I believed as well. Until I took a look at their stats in victories. Not a deep dive by any means, but for me interesting.

Warne
92 wins - 27 5fers - 7 10fers

McGrath
84 wins - 18 5fer - 3 10fers

And just for comparison

Marshall
43 wins - 17 5fers - 4 10fers

so Warne seemed to sometimes be more of a driving force in wins, even if slightly. But yes, could also be after McGrath took out the openers

Marshall though, in about half the wins had one less 5 wicket haul and one more 10 wicket haul.

these are the little reasons btw.

But 5fers are more a reflection of bowling volume than anything. Something which of course Warne would have the leg up on McGrath. (And honestly, as a measure of volume, I prefer WPI personally, as it's less noisy).

Would be interested to see average, SR, and WPI in said wins, as an disproportionate predeliction for matchwinning spells can certainly be a point in Marshall's favor.

 

[kyear2]

And you like to highlight slip fielding, as if it's some magical property that only the godlike talents can achieve. Potatoe, tomato.

But seriously, I do love and enjoy the craft of fast bowling as that's what drew me to the game to begin with, and would love to watch more and more footage of Marshall, as he was an absolute craftsman, there's no doubt.

Unfortunately, back in many of the days he (and Hadlee for that matter) played, some genius had the idea to film matches from an angle that tends to cover up the business end of ball delivery to batsman. It is quite annoying. In addition, I do also appreciate results not just the process and feel of a thing. Shoaib Akhtar sent chills down your spine, and Mushtaq Ahmed made bowling look boatloads of fun, but I'm hardly picking either of them in conversations about the ATG bowlers.

Ummmmmmm,

One, I highlight it because it's the most over looked, underappreciated and most crucially, underrated part of the game. Many matches were won and lost by which chances were taken and which weren't.

Two, it is a specialized skill that like batting and bowling you have to varying degrees and requires practice to hone. Ponting was a better slip fielder than Warne, that's indisputable. There are good ones and bad ones.

Three, you and so many others on the forum highlight allrounders and there are two points there to address.
While the numbers looks good, Imran and Sobers are at best average to below average in their secondary skills. It's just spreadsheet palatable to focus on them, so we couch it as "for a batman" or "for a bowler" . But guys like Ponting, Sobers, Hammond, Chappell, Kallis are genuinely brilliant at their catching skills.
Next, in addition to being better at it, it's also just as if not more important. I would honestly wager that between Ponting and let's say Waugh, that their catching contributed to more, and were pivotal to more victories than Imran's, Hadlee's and Pollock's hundreds combined.

But yeah, #batdeep.

 

[Coronis]

This is one of the two broader scope issues that bothers me with cricket.

First let me say that cricket isn't a one man game, and despite the best efforts of some of the games best lone warriors, it takes a good team to win. Of course duos like Lillee and Chappell, Hadlee and Crowe, Ambrose and Lara etc had their day.

But one thing we don't recognize in this sport is winning. With all the talent during their run, without Ponting and McWarne that team isn't the legendary team that it was. While it can be argued whether McGrath or Warne was the driver for that team, there is no such argument for the Windies team. While Viv primarily made his name in the late 70's into the early 80's it was Marshall, who from '83 made that team go. I've already mentioned the guys who retired / had injury issues or declined, but while he was there and going strong, which he almost always was, and did, he was the driver and kept us on top. You can listen to guys like Border had to say about him.

That’s extremely insulting to Courtney Walsh.

 

[kyear2]

But 5fers are more a reflection of bowling volume than anything. Something which of course Warne would have the leg up on McGrath. (And honestly, as a measure of volume, I prefer WPI personally, as it's less noisy).

Would be interested to see average, SR, and WPI in said wins, as an disproportionate predeliction for matchwinning spells can certainly be a point in Marshall's favor.

You really do try to make this more complicated than needed.

 

[kyear2]

That’s extremely insulting to Courtney Walsh.

Not extremely, but...

I probably underrate him a bit, I mean, watching his entire career he was never the man. He came in as the fourth option, and was subsequently surpassed by Ambrose, then Bishop, even Patterson (a little?). But to his credit, not only did he survive them, he outlasted them all.

 

[howitzer]

???

There are question marks over the umpiring in 1980 when Marshall didn't play, but none in 1987. Martin Crowe was just in insane form (1st player in over 40 years to score over 4,000 1st class runs in a calendar year) and John Wright and Jeremy Coney were also world class at the time. Marshall who averaged 32 was blunted by good NZ batting rather than poor NZ umpiring. I was only a kid but I remember Garner was seen as the big threat with the ball.

He was also the big threat with the bat

 

[howitzer]

Not extremely, but...

I probably underrate him a bit, I mean, watching his entire career he was never the man. He came in as the fourth option, and was subsequently surpassed by Ambrose, then Bishop, even Patterson (a little?). But to his credit, not only did he survive them, he outlasted them all.

IMO Walsh was better than Ambrose about 1996 onwards

 

[ataraxia]

Record in losses is generally more important for ATGs than record in wins.

 

[howitzer]

Record in losses is generally more important for ATGs than record in wins.

Hard disagree. Both more important than record in draws though

 

[Migara]

It's been over 12 years since this thread:

Marshall vs Hadlee - Poll Added

Discuss who was the better test bowler - don't care about ODIs. Hadlee Avg 22.29 Wickets 431 Matches 86 SR 50.8 Marshall Avg 20.94 Wickets 376 Matches 81 SR 46.7 I will make a case for Hadlee as I feel the general consensus on CW is that Marshall is the better bowler. Yes Hadlee had the...

www.cricketweb.net

Since then, I think something of a big 5 (Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn) of fast bowlers has emerged, and Marshall/McGrath as co-equal GOATs tends to be the consensus compared to Marshall as lone top of the tree from that time.

For me Imran > Ambrose

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

For me Imran > Ambrose

Imran is greater than Ambrose as well as Steyn for me

 

[Coronis]

Record in losses is generally more important for ATGs than record in wins.

I don’t necessarily agree with this fwiw.

But for fun.



McGrath 87 @ 23.89
Wasim 109 @ 24.69
Walsh 186 @ 25.09

Warne 102 @ 30.09
Murali 210 @ 31.66
Ashwin 81 @ 33.11

Flower 2713 @ 43.06
Lara 5316 @ 42.19
Chanderpaul 5370 @ 40.07
Waugh 2380 @ 37.77
Yousuf 2393 @ 37.39

just used the 50 on the first page for each - im sure there are even better performers with less wickets/runs

 

[kyear2]

I'm my watch back from the match last night, heard a stat that I thought was interesting.

Apparently (didn't fact check), the best win loss record in cricket history is owned Gilly, with Marshall being tied for second, McGrath falling in fifth.

 

[Coronis]

I'm my watch back from the match last night, heard a stat that I thought was interesting.

Apparently (didn't fact check), the best win loss record in cricket history is owned Gilly, with Marshall being tied for second, McGrath falling in fifth.

Wouldn’t surprise me considering the Windies team of that time had a much higher draw ratio.

EDIT: Fact check -

Gilchrist - 73-11-12 6.64 W/L ratio, 76.04 win %
Marshall - 43-9-29 4.77 W/L ratio, 53.08 win %
McGrath - 84-20-20 4.20 W/L ratio, 67.74 win %

 

[Aidan11]

Batsmen were more scared of facing Marshall than Hadlee.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Batsmen were more scared of facing Marshall than Hadlee.

Yes, but batsman were more scared of facing Patrick Patterson than probably any bowler on the planet, but that didn't make him a great.